Broward Tea Party

Broward Tea Party News and Views

The Settlers: by Charles Robertson

The Settlers
By: Charles Robertson
The Direct TV commercial became an instant classic.  It opens with the family at the Dining Room table where the children ask their parents why they settle for cable TV?  The ensuing dialog is hilarious and was such a hit that it spawned more versions.  I’d like to offer one myself, the storyline opens with the parents emerging from a voting booth, the children rush to them asking who they voted for, the parents respond in unison, “Donald Trump, we’re settlers, we settle.”  And so too have millions of Americans; I’m afraid I might be one of them.  It’s not like we conservatives aren’t used to settling, think McCain & Romney.  It’s just that this time we’re being asked to swallow harder and dip further into the bottom of the barrel.   
So strong is my distaste for Trump that I can only consider a vote for him as a vote against Hillary, who I see as far worse.  If you don’t want Hillary, the only option to keep her from the White House is a vote for Trump.  There’s no other option, case closed.  I’ve heard the argument about voting your conscience, but my conscience also has a practical side that considers the bigger picture.  But unlike the more obnoxious Trump supporters, I won’t denounce any conservative who’s in the #NeverTrump camp; I’m with them emotionally.  There are valid reasons to dislike the Donald, I just think that the time to stop Trump was early in the primary, but now that he’s the GOP choice, it gets simpler.
My wife came up with a great analogy: consider that you only have a choice of 2 schools for your child, neither one is good but one is somewhat better than the other.  So, what do you do, you pick the better school of course.  Now some will say that you have to send your child to school but you don’t have to vote.  To that I’d say, that a non-vote (or a vote for a 3rd party candidate with no chance of competing) favors someone.  If you’re a conservative that typically casts a vote for the conservative and you pull your vote, that’s indirectly supporting the liberal candidate.  If millions of conservatives react that way, hand it to Hillary.  I’d consider a vote for Donald a half measure towards a true conservative, which hopefully will arise in 2020.  Just because you reluctantly sent your child to the better of the bad schools doesn’t mean you’re not working to improve the school or working to find better future options.
One of the reasons I can swallow hard and vote for Trump is the big unknown.  If elected, no one knows how he would actually govern.  Conservatives speculate he’s a liberal in disguise but that’s speculation, it’s hard to say how conservative he might be. If he accomplishes half of his campaign promises, particularly those on immigration, he could prove us wrong and be quite successful.  With Hillary there’s no speculation, we could count on 4 more years of Obama and a liberal takeover of the Supreme Court. 
The Democratic Party has a diverse collection of special interests that should be at odds with their own party’s agenda; they’re the classic settlers.  The Democratic objectives of banning God from the public square to install a secular society, homosexual marriage, and late-term abortions, goes against traditional black values.  Liberal feminists who are quick to cry misogyny will be just as quick to ignore verbal insults and slurs leveled at the likes of conservatives such as Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Condoleezza Rice.  Liberal settlers will overlook a multitude of ideological differences as long as their special interest is supported.  Conservatives on the other hand tend to be more principled, often pulling support based on single issues.  The bottom line here is that far fewer liberals break rank which is why they win elections. 
Statistics show that 93 million eligible voters didn’t vote in the 2012 election.  White-voter turnout rates were down much more than voter turnout among other racial groups.  The concern in the Trump campaign is how many #NeverTrump conservatives will emerge to either not vote or vote independent.  Ironically, conservative anti-Trumpster’s are also anti-GOP establishment and no one has done more to shake up the GOP than Trump.  The message of this primary was that Republicans and many Conservatives (not to be confused with each other) are fed up with GOP political impotence.  That message will fall short if Trump himself falls short of winning.
My primary objection to Trump is based on his character (see prior blog – Character Counts) and judging on only that quality, I’d still hold him above Hillary.  My analogy is that I see Trump as a massive dose of government chemotherapy.  The treatment itself is a type of poison with harmful side effects, just like Trump.  At this point however, it offers the best chance of killing the cancer, the cancer being illegal immigration, special interests, fiscal irresponsibility, and foreign policy weakness among others.  The side effects of Trump would likely be inaction on conservative social issues and a leadership style that would become a rallying point for liberals.  If elected, I wouldn’t expect a Trump second term, and that’s where a conservative candidate could finish the work begun by Trump.  Yes, I’m a settler, but my eye is on 2020.

Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “The Settlers: by Charles Robertson

  1. Steve on said:

    A very clear explanation of the situation we find ourselves in at this time. It explains my sentiments to a ” T “. Excellent job ” Settler Charles”.

  2. I’m still wondering about the Trump having had a Jerry Maguire -esque epiphany theory – at some point somewhere around 2012 he just had a whole bunch of ideas and observations of his integrated into a vision of how to run the country. Before that, he may have waxed inconsistently as a liberal every now and then (i.e., “Paula Jones is a loser”, etc.), and waxed as a conservative too periodically. But since the epiphany he has become more consistent as a conservative, and that’s what he’s running on.

    Ultimately, what’s good: I think unlike HRC Trump will get the economy booming again, for two reasons:
    1. He wants to cut taxes, something to the effect of a top personal rate of 25% and a top corporate rate of 16% if I’m not mistaken. This will make business activity unspeakably more profitable than it is now; and
    2. He will rein in the activities of the federal alphabet soup regulatory agencies like the IRS, EPA, FCC, etc. I remember him saying something to the effect that if the EPA is really stopping pollution that’s good, but if they’re all sitting around eating donuts and drinking coffee while coming up with obscure regulations nobody can comply with, that’s not good. As with high taxes, high regs drive up the cost of doing business for everyone.

    Now, how much will a booming economy lead to solving the other issues? I think a great economy will prevent inflation from skyrocketing due to all the paper money Obama’s been printing, and it will provide much-needed tax revenue to build up the military and improve national security. Also Trump has said he likes charter schools and school choice, so that can improve education. His stated picks for the Supreme Court are very pro-life, so progress can be made on the abortion front and on other social issues as well.

    What’s not so good: his public persona is a little crazy and can be a big turn off though those who have dealt with him privately say he’s a lot more charming than that in person, so I won’t weigh in on it either way. Objectively, though, despite being brilliant he doesn’t have any direct public administration experience, so how well he governs is a mystery. He faces a steep learning curve, though the likes of Jim Woolsley, John Bolton and Newt Gingrich have given him B grades for how quickly he’s picked up foreign policy. I want to hear more from Trump, though, on other issues and see if he’s learning what he needs to across the board.

    Can he beat HRC? Maybe he already has.

    I see him starting off with Romney’s 206 electoral votes and not losing any of the states Mitt won. Then he’ll probably take Ohio. And the Orlando Pulse nightclub attack and the comment “What difference, at this point, does it make?” can’t be good for HRC in Florida, and even before the attack Trump was dead even with HRC here and had been leading over her here in the past so I say he probably has Florida too, for 253 electoral votes. That leaves him with 17 he needs to hit 270, which gets him elected. Pennsylvania has 20 and would do the job. He’s in more than one reliable poll only 1 point behind HRC there, the conservative PA coal miners hate HRC because she wants to put them out of business, the PA conservatives are more jazzed than PA liberals to vote, and HRC usually loses a couple of points when she has to campaign someplace on an intimate level (as she will need to in PA to defend it against Trump), so I say that it’s better than even money by election day Trump will be ahead in PA.

    But even if he loses PA he has other ways to get the 17: I can’t see HRC winning Iowa. I lived across the river in Omaha and know Iowans, and ethanol subsidies notwithstanding they’re not the kind of folks who’ll take HRC’s crap. That’s 6. In Washoe County, NV (Reno), an important bellwether county for presidential elections, Trump is 12 points ahead of HRC according to Axiom research, so Nevada’s another 6. As for the last 5, Oregon (7), Colorado (9), Virginia (13) and New Hampshire (4) and maybe one electoral vote in Maine are all on the fence and there for the taking.

    And keep the salt shaker handy with Real Clear Politics. I believe they try to make HRC look like she’s doing better than she is so that Barack won’t get the IRS to shut them down and padlock the place. So RCP uses push polls with skewed samples or high MoE’s to weight their averages in favor of HRC. For example, you’ll see in NH there’s one poll that puts HRC at +2, one showing a tie – and one showing HRC at +15. But they take the +15 outlying result and average it in, saying she’s +5 ahead when she’s really more like +0.5 ahead. Etc. Also, their delegate count is way off for Trump, because he’s leading in AZ, GA and NC – all states Romney took – and yet RCP is considering them “toss-ups”. The accurate count should be about 204-220 (depending on how you consider MI) for HRC and 206-224 (depending on how you consider OH) for Trump at this point.

    Gary Johnson and Jill Stein as 3rd party candidates have no real effect.

    HRC in contrast with Trump will not only ruin the Supreme Court, she will not improve the economy because she won’t rein in the reg agencies or lower taxes, she certainly won’t beef up the military to improve national security, and she won’t promote charter schools or school choice. The result will be a catastrophe, particularly with Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons and covert surrogates who’ll willingly use them.

    Verdict: vote for Trump anyway, because we’re electing him President and not drinking buddy, stay active in conservative politics and be cautiously optimistic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: